National
Drinking Water Clearinghouse
West Virginia University
PO Box 6893
Morgantown, WV
26506-6893News
and Notes(Fall
2003)

Think Before You Flush That Pill
We used to think the best way to dispose of old or leftover medicine was to
flush it down the toilet. That way kids and animals wouldn’t come in
contact with it and inadvertently become poisoned. But that’s not true
anymore, and environmental scientists are warning people, “Do not flush.”

Antibiotics,
hormones, painkillers, antidepressants, and an array of other medications
are now finding their way into the nation’s waterways—raising
disturbing questions about potential health and environmental effects, according
to the Associated Press article, “Flushing Expired Drugs No Longer Recommended.”
Besides individuals who flush prescriptions, nursing homes dispose of anywhere
between $73 million and $378 million worth of drugs each year. Some are incinerated,
but many are just flushed.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is studying whether to develop
formal recommendations for what to do with old or leftover drugs. “The
age-old wisdom of flushing medication down the toilet is probably the least
desirable of the alternatives,”
says Christian Daughton of EPA’s Las Vegas laboratory.

Long-term effects of these drugs aren’t known, but environmental scientists
worry that exposure to even tiny amounts might cause harm, at least to the
ecology.
Studies have linked hormone exposure to reproductive side effects in fish
(see the article in On Tap, Winter 2003, “They’re in the water.
They make fish change sex. Endocrine Disruptors. What are they doing to you?”)
Scientists also worry about environmental exposure to antibiotics because
they fear microbes may become drug resistant and eventually become “super
germs.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reevaluating its policy about labeling
drugs with instructions for disposal. In addition, some states are working
to allow nursing homes to donate medications to indigent patients, as long
they weren’t opened or tampered with in any way. Until there’s
labeling, though, environmental experts offer this advice:
• Take all of a prescribed medication unless there’s a good reason
not to, such as a bad side effect.
• Trash is better than the toilet. Take proper precautions against children
or pets accidentally ingesting them, such as breaking up capsules and crushing
tablets and then putting the remains back in the original container. Tape
the container, and then double bag it before tossing.
• Check to see if there’s a local household hazardous waste
collection site that will take old prescription drugs.
• The FDA suggests asking pharmacies to take old medication back.

RUS
Loans: Poverty Rate Unchanged; Others UpThe
Rural Utilities Service (RUS) announced interest rates for water and wastewater
loans. RUS interest rates are issued quarterly at three different levels: the
poverty line rate, the intermediate rate, and the market rate. The rates, which
apply to all loans issued from October 1 through December 31, 2003, are:

RUS loans are administered through state Rural Development offices, which can
provide specific information concerning RUS loan requirements and applications
procedures. For the phone number of your state Rural Development office, contact
the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse at (800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191.
The list is also available on the RUS Web site at www.usda.gov/rus/water/states/usamap.htm.Study
Finds Nitrates Increase Bladder Cancer RiskNitrate in drinking
water is associated with an increased risk for bladder cancer, according to
a University of Iowa (UI) study that looked at cancer incidence among nearly
22,000 Iowa women.

The
study results suggest that even low-level exposure to nitrates over many years
could cause increases in certain types of cancer, said Peter Weyer, Ph.D., associate
director of the UI Center for Health Effects of Environmental Contamination
(CHEEC) and one of the study’s lead authors. The study was published in
the May 2001 issue of the journal Epidemiology.

“The positive association we found between nitrate contamination in drinking
water and bladder cancer is consistent with some previous data. However, this
is something that warrants follow-up research,” said Weyer, who co-authored
the article with James R. Cerhan, M.D., Ph.D., an investigator with the department
of health sciences research at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

The researchers assessed nitrate exposure from drinking water in 21,977 women
who were participants in the Iowa Women’s Health Study. The women, who
were between 55 and 69 years old in 1986 (at the start of the study) resided
in a total of 400 Iowa communities and had used the same drinking water supply
for more than 10 years. Approximately 16,500 of the women received their water
from municipal water supplies; the remaining women used private wells.

Because no individual water consumption data were available, the researchers
assigned each woman an average level of exposure to nitrate based on data collected
between 1955 to 1988 on nitrate levels in her community’s water supply.
No nitrate data were available about women using private wells.

Using cancer incidence data from the Iowa Cancer Registry for 1986 to 1998,
and after adjusting for factors such as smoking and nitrate in the diet, the
researchers found a greater risk for bladder cancer as the nitrate levels in
the communitie’ water supplies increased. Women whose average drinking
water nitrate exposure level was greater than 2.46 milligrams (mg) per liter
(nitrate-nitrogen) were 2.83 times more likely to develop bladder cancer than
women in the lowest nitrate exposure level (less than 0.36 mg per liter).

Nitrate is produced naturally within the body, environmental sources include
food (including many vegetables), contaminated drinking water, cigarette smoking,
and certain medications. Drinking water can account for a substantial proportion
of the total nitrate intake. Up to 20 percent of ingested nitrate is transformed
in the body to nitrite, which can then undergo transformation in the stomach,
colon and bladder to form N-nitroso compounds. These compounds are known to
cause cancer in a variety of organs in more than 40 animal species, including
higher primates.

“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency drinking water standard is 10
mg per liter nitrate-nitrogen. Our study suggests that nitrate levels much less
than that could be a serious health concern,” Weyer said. Weyer emphasized
that additional studies are needed to look at possible links between nitrate
levels in drinking water and cancer, particularly with respect to refining exposure
assessments.

“From a public health perspective, source water protection is a main concern.
Sources of nitrate which can impact water supplies include fertilizers, human
waste, and animal waste,” he said. “All of us, rural and urban residents
alike, need to be more aware of how what we do as individuals can impact our
water sources and, potentially, our health.”

For more information about this study, e-mail ellenr@nitrate.comor call (888) NITRATE (1-888-648-7283). Water
Peace or Water WarAfter seven years of negotiations, tentative
pacts, broken deals, bitter denunciations and a federal water cutback, four
giant Southern California water agencies finally have a plan that can lead to
peace on the Colorado River, protect the Salton Sea and give San Diego a measure
of water independence.

The
California and federal governments support the agreement. So do the other six
Colorado River Basin states. The California Legislature has passed the implementing
bills with rare unanimity and dispatch. All that remains is formal approval
by the water district boards: the Imperial Irrigation District, a giant farming
area in Imperial County; the San Diego County Water Authority, the wholesaler
to districts throughout its county; the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California, wholesaler to six area counties; and the Coachella Valley Water
District, serving Riverside County farms and cities. They should seal the deal
quickly.

The plan allows California to continue to take surplus water from the Colorado
River, when it is available, for the next 12 years. This would enable the state
to gradually wean itself from the water it has been taking in excess of its
legal entitlement, 4.4 million acre-feet a year. One acre-foot provides the
annual needs of two households.

Finally settled is how California‘s Colorado River allotment would be
divided among Imperial, Coachella and Metropolitan. This has been an unsettled
and disrupting issue since the 1930s. Metropolitan would gain access to some
Imperial water, thus reducing its need to seek additional supplies from Northern
California. San Diego would receive up to 200,000 acre-feet a year from Imperial
in the largest farm-to-city water trade ever. Currently, San Diego is all but
totally reliant on Metropolitan. In a severe drought, San Diego’s portion
could be cut back to preserve supplies for other, more senior Metropolitan customers.

The new plan ingeniously provides environmental protection for the Salton Sea,
which relies on Imperial Valley irrigation runoff to prevent a fatal buildup
of salt. The cost of Salton Sea restoration, to both the state and the agencies,
killed an earlier agreement. The new plan provides for Imperial to sell an additional
block of conserved farm water to the state, which would then resell the water
at a profit to Metropolitan. The estimated $300 million would go to the Salton
Sea rescue program.

Davis and his chief negotiator, Richard Katz, should get credit for insisting
for months that talks continue until agreement was reached. The four agencies
have agreed to act by October 12th. Metropolitan ratified the pact Tuesday.
The only question mark is Imperial, set to vote on the plan October 7th.

This deal is as good as it’s going to get for all the parties and for
the state as a whole. With it comes water peace. Without it, endless water war
— in the courts and
elsewhere. New
Jersey DHSS Releases Radium Report The New Jersey Department
of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) conducted a study that shows an association
between elevated levels of radium in drinking water and a rare type of bone
cancer. Previous studies in Ontario, Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin also found
a connection between osteosarcoma and radium in drinking water.

Radium is a naturally occurring radioactive element found in groundwater throughout
the U.S., including New Jersey. The federal government has established maximum
contamination levels for radiological contamination. New Jersey has been monitoring
and testing water supplies for many years, requiring water systems to undertake
remediation efforts if they exceed the standards.

The body absorbs radium and deposits it in bones, where it can cause osteosarcoma
if a person is exposed over a long period of time. Osteosarcoma occurs in an
average of three people per million annually in New Jersey.

The study showed that males in parts of central and southern New Jersey, where
radium concentrations exceeded federal standards, had a three-fold higher risk
of developing osteosarcoma. The risk was highest in men age 25 and over. Researchers
did not find an increased risk among females. (Genetic susceptibility may contribute
to up to half of all osteosarcomas, and exposure to certain medical treatments
also may cause the cancer.)

New Jersey’s study, based on the nation’s most complete measurement
of all types of radium contributing to an individual’s overall natural
exposure, reviewed 75 cases of osteosarcoma diagnosed from 1979–1998 and
water test results from 1997–2000. Researchers used data from community
water system surveys conducted by the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and the U.S. Geological Survey. They examined 117 community water
systems and subsystems serving 1.4 million people in 10 counties, where they
found that 17 of the systems exceeded drinking water standards for radiological
contamination.

To view a copy of the report, please visit the department Web site at www.nj.gov/health/eoh/radium.pdf.
The
Lights Go Out on BroadwayWhat happens if America fails to invest in its infrastructure?
The condition of our nation’s roads, bridges,
drinking water systems, and other public works have shown little improvement
since they received a D+ in 2001, and some areas are sliding toward failing
grades, concluded the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in their 2003
Progress Report for America’s Infrastructure.

“Time is working against our nation’s infrastructure,” said
ASCE President Thomas L. Jackson, P.E. “Since we graded the infrastructure
in 2001, our roads are more congested than ever, the number of unsafe and hazardous
dams has increased, and our schools are unable to accommodate the mandated reductions
in class size.

“While millions of Americans struggled to live without electricity for
three days, millions more are still in the dark about the shaky state of our
nation’s infrastructure. Our transportation, water, and energy systems
haven’t been maintained, let alone
updated, to supply our every-increasing demands,” said Jackson.

“Americans’ concerns about security threats are real, but so are
the threats posed by crumbling infrastructure,” he continued. “It
doesn’t matter if the dam fails because cracks have never been repaired
or if it fails at the hands of a terrorist. The towns below the dam will still
be devastated.”

In 2001, the estimated cost for infrastructure renewal was $1.3 trillion over
a five-year period. Today, that cost has risen to $1.6 trillion over a five-year
period. The forecast for the trends detailed in the 2003 Progress Report
was based on condition and performance of each infrastructure category as reported
by federal sources, capacity of infrastructure versus need, and current and
pending investment of state, local, and federal funding for infrastructure versus
need.

For more information, including local infrastructure conditions and state
infrastructure statistics, visit ASCE’s Web site atwww.asce.org/reportcard.
Federal
Funding Sources Catalog AvailableThe Catalog of
Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection Web site is a searchable database
of financial assistance sources (grants, loans, cost-sharing) available to fund
watershed protection projects. To select funding programs for particular requirements,
use either of two searches: One is based on subject matter criteria, and the
other is based on words in the title of the funding program.

Searches result in a listing of programs by name. Click on each program name
to review detailed information on the funding source.

For more information about this catalog, visit the Web site atcfpub.epa.gov/fedfund.World
Bank: Water Is the New Middle East CrisisThe water shortage problem is close to crisis
levels in most countries of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region,
a senior World Bank official warned in a Yahoo News article (Yahoo News is an
Internet news service.)

“Fresh water availability is falling to crisis levels in MENA countries,”
said Jean-Louis Sarbib, senior vice president of the World Bank, speaking at
a conference at the annual World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings
in Dubai. Annual per capita fresh water availability in MENA countries is about
1,200 cubic meters compared with a world average of about 7,000 to 7,500 cubic
meters, according to Sarbib.

He said the figure for Yemen is about 500 cubic meters, almost half the water
poverty line of 1,000 cubic meters.Sarbib said nearly 70 percent of municipal
water in cities like Amman goes unaccounted for, while Egypt recovers only two
percent of its irrigation costs. Hazim el-Naser, Jordan’s minister of
water and irrigation, said the problem lies in the fact that many countries
in the region have “no long-term vision” regarding the water issue.
Although the MENA region accounts for five percent of the world population,
it has only one percent of accessible fresh water worldwide, according to the
World Bank. They’ve made the politically charged issue of scarce water
resources one of its “millennium development goals.” Newly
Discovered Bacteria Eats ArsenicSome
newly discovered Australian bacteria have a strange appetite: They like arsenic.
An Australian research group led by Joanne Santini of La Trobe University is
working on how to use bacteria that eat arsenic to clean up contaminated wastewater
in Australia, overseas mining environments, and drinking water wells in Bangladesh
and West Bengal in India. Santini presented her research at Fresh Science, a
British Council-sponsored program that highlights the achievements of Australian
scientists who are beginning their careers.

“If
the iron guts of bacteria that can eat arsenic without dying could be harnessed
to process this waste, less damage would be done to the environment and hopefully,
one day, fewer people on the subcontinent will get sick,” Santini said.

Arsenic occurs naturally in rocks and, in this form, is harmless. But when exposed
to air and water, it becomes soluble and toxic to plants, animals, and humans.
Mining and boring rock for drinking wells can expose the arsenic and turn it
into two toxic forms: arsenate and arsenite.

Arsenate is easy and safe to get rid of. But arsenite is not. Santini hopes
arsenite can be removed by the use of arsenite-eating bacteria on a mass scale.Santini
and her students are studying 13 rare bacteria that were isolated from gold
mines in the Northern Territory and Bendigo, Victoria. One bacterium, NT-26,
is an arsenite-munching champion. It eats arsenite and excretes arsenate, which
is a form of arsenic that’s easy to treat.

Theoretically, she says, it is cheaper and safer to use bacteria to clean up
the environmental mess than chemical methods using chlorine or hydrogen peroxide.
Santini’s group has found the enzyme directly responsible for converting
arsenite to arsenate. The group is now working to identify the same enzyme in
other microbes and hunting for other proteins and genes involved in eating arsenite.

Santini, however, reminds us that to understand how these microbes work, they
must be closely scrutinized. “We can’t just plonk them into a biological
reactor and hope for the best,” she said.